Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique
Products & Services On Earth!

Obama's Terror War On Libya

By Stephen Lendman
4-4-11

Since WW II, America's gone to war as much to wage as
win them because so many profiteers benefit. The prospect of peace, in
fact, terrifies government, military officials, and corporate predators,
so new enemies are invented when old ones are vanquished, are no longer
of interest, or conflicts end for other reasons.

Wars are solely for wealth and power, never humanitarian
intervention to liberate oppressed people or promote democracy. They're
notions, in fact, US leaders won't tolerate, notably Obama, doubling down
on Bush, waging his Iraq and Afghan wars, fighting two others in Pakistan
and Libya, another allied with Israel against Palestine, as well as proxy
wars in Somalia, Central Africa, Yemen, Bahrain, Haiti, Honduras, Colombia,
and at home against Muslims, Latino immigrants, and working Americans.

Perhaps now more than ever, at home and abroad, America
always spurned honor, high-mindedness, justice, and rule of law principles,
as well as respect for democratic values, human rights and civil liberties.

"All governments lie, and nothing they say should
be believed:" IF Stone

Notably, candidate Obama pledged:

-- "hope;"

-- "change;"

-- peace;

-- democratic values;

-- closing Guantanamo in one year;

-- ending torture, illegal spying, and detention without
trial;

-- "a new era of openness;"

-- "sunlight before signing" new legislation
to let Americans review and comment;

-- supporting Israeli and Palestinian efforts to "fulfill
their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security;"
and

-- on Afghanistan saying (October 27, 2007): "I
will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the
time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops
home. We will bring an end to this (and the Iraq) war(s). You can take
that to the bank," and by implication not begin new ones.

As President, Obama broke all the above pledges and others,
including every major one, delivering betrayal, not populist change. Make
no mistake. His imperial ambitions are reckless, duplicitous, unscrupulous,
and lawless - mindless of vital homeland needs and priorities, notably
for America's growing millions in poverty or heading there, denied help
to wage global wars, bail out Wall Street, and benefit other corporate
favorites.

As a result, he accelerated America's decline, heading
the nation for tyranny and ruin, what Abraham Lincoln meant when he said:

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be
its author and finisher."

More recently, until his November 2010 death, Chalmers
Johnson warned about America's out-of-control militarism, imperial arrogance,
and self-destructiveness, calling the nation's condition dire, "too
late for mere scattered reforms of our government or bloated military to
make much difference."

History is clear, he stressed. We can choose democracy
and survive. Or continue as present and perish, saying America is plagued
by the same dynamic that doomed past empires unwilling to change, what
he called:

"isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and
global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy,"
combined with authoritarian rule and loss of personal freedom.

It gives an entirely new meaning to the epithet "ugly
American," defined stereotypically as loud, boorish, ill-mannered,
and overbearing, especially when traveling overseas. It more appropriately
refers to rogue government policy, at home and abroad, out-of-control under
Obama, a man some call a "Manchurian candidate," serving the
worst of wealth and power interests.

As a result, he accelerated America's decline by:

-- dismissing popular needs;

-- waging permanent imperial wars;

-- tolerating a secret, unaccountable global torture
prison gulag;

-- running the most secretive, intrusive, repressive
government in our history, spurning rule of law principles and democratic
values for unchallengeable power and super-wealth; and

-- supporting endemic corruption, incestuous government-business
ties, and flaunting the notion of government of, by and for the people.

Johnson explained that imperial ambitions "undercut
our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or
its civilian equivalent."

"The founders of our nation understood this well
and tried to create a form of government - a republic - that would prevent
this from occurring. But the combination of huge standing armies, almost
continuous wars, military Keynesianism, and ruinous military expenses have
destroyed our republican structure in favor of an imperial presidency.
We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our
empire. Once a nation is started down that path, the dynamics that apply
to all empires come into play - isolation, overstretch, the uniting of
forces opposed to imperialism, and bankruptcy."

In 2003, he came in from the cold, became a valued Western
ally, had meetings and discussions with top officials like UK Prime Ministers
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi,
US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and others. He also participated
in the 2009 G-8 Summit in L-Aquila, Italy as Chairman of the African Union.
At the time, he met and shook hands with Obama.

Moreover, ABC News interviewed him live, and on January
21, 2009, The New York Times published his op-ed headlined, "The One-State
Solution" as his answer to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, calling
"living under one roof....the only option for a lasting peace."

On May 16, 2006, Washington restored full diplomatic
relations, removing Libya from its state sponsors of terrorism list. At
the time, Rice called the move:

"tangible results that flow from the historic decisions
taken by Libya's leadership in 2003 to renounce terrorism and to abandon
its weapons of mass destruction programs....Libya is an important model
as nations around the world press for changes in behavior by the Iranian
and North Korean regimes."

She also praised Gaddafi's "excellent cooperation"
in fighting terrorism. Moreover, he opened Libya's markets to Western interests,
arranged deals with Big Oil, notably BP, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell,
Occidental, France's Total, Italy's Eni Gas, among others. By all appearances,
he joined the club, so why turn on him now?

James Petras explained it's "because (he) refused
to actively contribute to Western military operations in Africa and the
Middle East." He wouldn't be part of AFRICOM, one of nine global Pentagon
commands, its newest, for the African and Mediterranean Basin region, including
its strategic energy transit routes and choke points, crucial to keep open
for world economies. All African countries participate except Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Ivory Coast, Eritrea, and Libya.

In other words, Gaddafi played ball economically, but
not militarily. However, according to The New York Times:

After 9/11, "he reportedly shared his intelligence
files on Al Qaeda with the United States to aid in the hunt for its international
operatives. He had also cooperated with (America) and Europe on nuclear
weapons, terrorism and immigration issues."

Petras calls war on Gaddafi "part of a more general
counter-attack in response to the most recent Arab popular pro-democracy
movements," ones Washington will go to great lengths to quash, wanting
puppet regional leaders serving Western interests, none even partly independent
like Gaddafi.

Immanuel Wallerstein agrees, saying the Libyan conflict
"wan(s) to slow down, channel, co-opt, (and) limit the second Arab
revolt and prevent it from changing the basic political realities of the
Arab world and its role in the geopolitics of the world-system."

Nonetheless, he calls the outcome uncertain. "It
will probably be a morass." It may or may not quell Arab uprisings
or oust Gaddafi. "We don't know yet, (and if he goes), what will succeed
him?" Overall, he says US intervention "is a mistake....It won't
end soon....It's a terrible, ominous, and ultimately self-defeating proposition."
Given Washington's quagmires in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan alone,
who can disagree.

A Final Comment on Justice Richard Goldstone's Sellout
to the Israeli Lobby

A previous article said he softened his criticism of
Israel's Gaza terror war - Operation Cast Lead. Apparently he was either
bribed, co-opted, or bullied to do it, despite clear evidence his commission,
others, and numerous human rights organizations revealed - unequivocally
detailing extensive Israeli crimes of war and against humanity. Access
the article through the following link:

On April 2, New York Times writers Ethan Bronner and
Isabel Kershner headlined, "Head of UN Panel Regrets Saying Israel
Intentionally Killed Gazans," quoting him citing Israeli investigations
(in fact, brazen whitewashes) "indicat(ing) that civilians were not
intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

As a result, according to Haaretz writer Barak Ravid,
"Israel to launch campaign urging UN to retract Goldstone report,"
saying:

Prime Minister Netanyahu plans international efforts
against accusations of Israeli war crimes, despite clear evidence they're
true. Nonetheless, "he asked the new National Security Adviser, Ya'akov
Amidror, to establish a committee focused on 'minimizing the damage caused'
by the report."

On April 3, Ma'an News said:

"Hamas on Sunday urged the UN to confirm its report
on Israel's 2008-2009 offensive," spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri saying,
Israel didn't cooperate with investigators, "while in Gaza they were
welcomed and their work was facilitated."

Zuhri added:

"The report is not the private property of Goldstone,
as it was co-authored by him and a group of international judges. Furthermore,
(it) was based on documents and testimonies, giving it credibility and
strength."

He also worries that retracting war crimes evidence gives
Israel a pretext to "commit more massacres," claiming self-defense,
the last refuge of a scoundrel caught red-handed.

On April 3, International Middle East Media Center contributor
Celine Hagbard headlined, "Goldstone Flip-flops After Talk with Racist
Zionists," saying:

He attended, but didn't participate in, a recent Stanford
University debate between two lawyers and two Zionist academics, apparently
buying their convoluted self-defense arguments to justify crimes of war
and against humanity.

"Yes, it's true," she said, "5 Israeli
civilians were killed by erratic, un-aimed homemade shells fired (in response
to Israeli attacks) from Gaza. And 9 Israeli soldiers were killed invading
Gaza," at least three by friendly fire. Compare that to thousands
of (mostly civilian) Palestinian deaths and injuries, many serious, as
well as vast destruction of schools, hospitals, businesses, homes, infrastructure,
and other civilian targets.

"It seems that Richard Goldstone now sees these
two sides as morally equivalent," no matter which one began hostilities,
rightfully giving the other just cause to respond as international law
allows.

"How ironic," said Hagbard, that Goldstone
"published his (op-ed) in the Washington Post (an establishment paper,
strongly supporting Israel) on April Fool's Day, as he has proven by it
that he has let himself become one," as well as co-opted, compromised
and corrupted, betraying those who believed in him and truth.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays
at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs
are archived for easy listening.